Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?
- This topic has 359 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:Sorry twc, but I still have no idea what you're talking about. Marx's quote on science is all very well as far as it goes, but it's old hat: science has shown there is no "essence" of things, that it's "appearance" all the way down and out the other side again. …I'll challenge you again: could you tell me, in a sentence or two, using your own words, and preferably words of plain English, what our argument is about?
Since I doubt that you'll have any success in appealing to twc to write 'plain English', perhaps I'll try to spark off a discussion that the rest of us can understand, and thus participate in.I think that Marx's view of 'essence and appearance' has actually been substantiated by science, since his days.The model of science used to be to passively observe the 'appearance' of nature to humans, and then draw conclusions and form theories (the inductive method, or 'practice and theory').But since Einstein we've become clearer that a human theory is required prior to actively interrogating the appearance of nature, and that the conclusions that we draw are based upon our creative activity upon nature. That is, theory is required to get to the 'essence' of nature. This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.What do you think?
I think you're right about how science works (I think it's more or less what I was saying: there's no 'essence' to grab hold of, it's theory and maths and testing all the way down) though whether that's what Marx was doing, or what he achieved in creating, I'm not sure. If Marxism is a science, it sure is a strange one – not even it's strongest proponents and adherents can even agree what the terms mean or what would constitute confirmation or refutation! That's why in the essay I went with the idea that Capital should be read as what its subtitle hints it is – a critique of political economy, not an alternative political economy. Or, as Wheen puts it, a satirical utopia.
Above was reply to LBird. My reply to twc is that his long answer to my brief question seems to be "no". But if anyone can decode, please do.
Sorry, stuart, but science has proved no such thingEssence, for Marx, is no more than abstraction from appearance. Both are hegelian terms.Science has not disproved that we abstract, and automatically must abstract, from appearance. Science has not disproved that the residue of our abstraction process is a suite of abstract explanatory principles. That’s what Marx is driving at, as far as our comprehension is concerned, and science affirms him, and does not disprove him.You and I automatically, as well as consciously, critique the immediate appearance presented to our consciousness all of the time. I therefore see no reason to shun Marx’s explanatory hegelian terminology. You give me a genuine, rather than a fashionable, reason for doing so.I heartily recommend that you read all of Volume 3 Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula” for a true masterpiece of the scientific critique of appearance. It is one of the most illuminating chapters Marx ever wrote.For Marx, appearance is what our consciousness is presented with. But our consciousness must critique the appearance presented to it in order to comprehend what lies beyond it in the external world we must comprehend in order to act successfully in.Now you want another appearance to lie behind our immediate appearance, and another appearance to lie behind that, ad infinitum.Well, if appearance is what is presented to consciousness, and so is what needs explanation, then we have the lovely deferred explanatory chain: Standing behind what needs immediate explanation is what also needs explanation, and standing behind what also needs explanation is what also needs explanation, ad infinitum.If comprehension rests on appearance all the way down to no non-appearing bedrock, how on earth do you propose we stop the explanatory chain and work our way back up it to explain the original immediate appearance, whose fleeting moment has long since been displaced by new ever-changing immediate experiences.The answer, of course, is your claim, that it’s appearance all the way down, is absolutely false. This is an empiricism that has gone berserk. You are an unconscious dualist and an empiricist. Wow!We absolutely need abstraction, and so we absolutely need essence, to decode and comprehend our immediate appearance.If you can’t comprehend that, I genuinely have little hope for you.
stuart2112 wrote:I think you're right about how science works (I think it's more or less what I was saying: there's no 'essence' to grab hold of, it's theory and maths and testing all the way down) though whether that's what Marx was doing, or what he achieved in creating, I'm not sure.I think that the 'essence' is a human creation: that is, an understanding based upon 'theory and practice', so that our 'understanding' of a rock is not a copy of a rock.Perhaps Protagoras' claim that 'man is the measure of all things' is relevent, here.Science doesn't produce 'The Truth' about nature, but produces human understanding of nature. And as humans can be wrong, so 'scientific truth' (ie. something proved in practice ) can be wrong. Thus, 'truth' is social and thus has a history.If the theory is bollocks, but just happens to work, it can be erroneously believed to be The Truth. We can't ever say that we know the 'absolute truth', and as Pannekoek said, humans are not engaged in 'discovery science', which, once produced, is true forever (because it's a copy of nature), but that science is a human, social, cultural and historical activity, that produces 'socially objective' knowledge. It's the best we can get.
stuart2112 wrote:If Marxism is a science, it sure is a strange one – not even it's strongest proponents and adherents can even agree what the terms mean or what would constitute confirmation or refutation!This is a real problem – the nature of Marxist science is argued over constantly. I think it's because what most Marxists call 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'.
Stuart, most mankind recognize our common humanity. It is not lack of comprehension that we all comprise a single species that is the problem. Our commonality is more and more universally acknowledged.The socialist case, however, is that racism, under capitalism, occurs for social reasons that appear to its protagonists to override consideration of our common humanity, even when we all recognize it. Just like nationalism, which is just as virulent, even when it acknowledges the common humanity of nationalities. Or religion, even when the Western faiths acknowledge common legendary ancestry and gods. Or poverty, or class, etc.Our common humanity has never once proved a genuine obstacle to hostile social division arising from what Marx called “economic” causes. It is these we must first explain.
I agree with almost everything you say, LB, except I don't think it's fair to keep blaming poor old Engels. What you would say would seem to imply that the best thing a Marxist 'science' could do would be to forget about Engels and go back to Marx, and just focus on what Marx said. But everyone says that, and we don't seem to get very far. Take the financial crisis. What agreement is there about the causes of that? There is some agreement, but it's all on the level of journalistic common sense. Go 'deeper', into the 'science' of it, whether the 'science' of Marxism or Keynesianism or whatever, and all you get is more and more confused. The best we can get would seem to be a Piketty style investigation – but then that is, as far as I'm aware, entirely empircal and common sensical, and anway only confirms with data what everyone knew anyway.
stuart2112 wrote:I agree with almost everything you say, LB, except I don't think it's fair to keep blaming poor old Engels. What you would say would seem to imply that the best thing a Marxist 'science' could do would be to forget about Engels and go back to Marx, and just focus on what Marx said. But everyone says that, and we don't seem to get very far.I’m not simply ‘blaming poor old Engels'! Much of what he wrote about ‘science’ (and is taken as the basis of Marx’s views) can now clearly be seen as nonsense, and far too influenced by 19th century ‘science’. But he also wrote plenty which contradicts himself, and agrees with Marx’s more ‘social’ views about knowledge. Furthermore, Marx himself wrote passages which can be fitted in with ‘positivist’ science, but these are at odds with the bulk of his work. Part of the problem is that Marx’s earlier works were published (1930s) after Engels’ views of science had already formed the basis of ‘Marxism’ (1890s).I think Marx’s views of science fit far better with those of late 20th century philosophers of science like Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos. I especially like the latter, and have tried to get a discussion going about this, but we always get bogged down in the religious reverence for ‘Scientific Socialism’, which is based upon Engels, not Marx.
stuart2112 wrote:Go 'deeper', into the 'science' of it, whether the 'science' of Marxism or Keynesianism or whatever, and all you get is more and more confused.It’s simple, really. Pick an ideological science (and all science is ideological, including physics) and use it to build an understanding of economics/production.I’m inclined to think that you believe that there is a neutral ‘scientific method’ which produces the truth, and wish it could be transferred to economics. Your ‘confusion’ arises from that belief, rather than from the ideology. You seem to think that an objective, common sense, approach will help. It doesn’t exist, all science is social, and that is the lesson of the 20th century. We have to choose, and build our ‘truth’ about the ‘economy’. It won’t tell us what it is, if only we passively observe its workings. That is the myth of the 19th century ‘objective science’, and it doesn’t work for physics, never mind economics. We have to choose a ‘position’, in nature and in society, and be aware of it.
stuart2112 wrote:The best we can get would seem to be a Piketty style investigation – but then that is, as far as I'm aware, entirely empircal and common sensical, and anway only confirms with data what everyone knew anyway.Empiricism and common sense are useless for building understanding; and ‘data’ only exists within a theoretical framework. You picks your ideology, you gathers your data!IMO, Marx’s views of capitalism provide us with the best way of understanding the capitalist system. In a nutshell, that means I start from the notion that any owner of socially productive property is a thief, a liar, and doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes the queen, all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.Empiricism and common sense will just gather ‘data’ which supports the unspoken and unacknowledged ‘theory/ideology’ that has been given to the thinker by society. That is, those methods will just produce results that support capitalism.I’m sure you know that Keynes was an elitist who wanted to preserve capitalism, not destroy it and replace it with a different system of production. I think it’s best to be open about our ideologies, and if someone isn’t a Communist who thinks that society should democratically control its production, they should be open about their ‘ideological science’.
LBird wrote:Empiricism and common sense are useless for building understanding;More gush and drivel. Empiricism and 'common sense' are not the same thing for starters.
LBird wrote:IMO, Marx’s views of capitalism provide us with the best way of understanding the capitalist system. In a nutshell, that means I start from the notion that any owner of socially productive property is a thief, a liar, and doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes the queen, all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.How does any of that come from Marx's theory of value? Or perhaps you're talking about Groucho Marx?
LBird wrote:Empiricism and common sense will just gather ‘data’ which supports the unspoken and unacknowledged ‘theory/ideology’ that has been given to the thinker by society. That is, those methods will just produce results that support capitalism.You seem to be willfully ignorant of the many results from empirical sceince that support the case of socialism.
I agree with most of what you say, and will try to explain where I think we differ by asking a question. What is there, in Marxist 'science', what does it tell me, that I couldn't have got from a common sensical, critical reading of the Financial Times, and perhaps a few other publications or blogs for some context and debate? I can assure you that I have tried to answer this question myself, by reading extensively in Marx, and in the other things I mention, and I drew a blank.
stuart2112 wrote:I agree with most of what you say, and will try to explain where I think we differ by asking a question.Right! Shoot away!
stuart2112 wrote:What is there, in Marxist 'science', what does it tell me, that I couldn't have got from a common sensical, critical reading of the Financial Times, and perhaps a few other publications or blogs for some context and debate?Does the FT tell you that the queen is a thief?I know that I’m over-simplifying, but ‘over-egging the pudding’ usually helps to bring into sharp relief the opposing sides in a debate. As long as you read ‘queen’ as referring to all ‘authorities’ in our society (including scientists and politicians), you will get my gist.If I were to be a bit more subtle, I would ask where does the FT stress the division of humanity into the small group who take wealth by force (and its threat), and the massive group who produce that wealth, but have no control over it?
stuart wrote:I can assure you that I have tried to answer this question myself, by reading extensively in Marx, and in the other things I mention, and I drew a blank.I think that you’re just plain wrong here, stuart. Marx openly stresses this division, between ‘vampires’ and ‘victims’.So, the basis of ‘economics’ is to explain this division: where did the vampires come from, how do they continue to drain blood from the victims, why don’t the victims realise that they are the source of vampire nutrition, and why don’t the victims realise that they don’t require the existence of vampires, to exist themselves?Are you a ‘donor’ to vampires, stuart? Is that your basic ‘economic category’? If not, why not?
DJP and twc: I've tried before to discuss with you about 'science', but since we don't seem to be able to find any common ground, I won't enter into that again with you now.You'll have to stick with your beliefs, and I'll stick with mine.
LB: let's try another tack. Say there's a chap, he's reasonably well educated and intelligent, has his head screwed on, considers himself a left-leaning socialist in a vague way, and, because he has a job, feels very much like the life is being sucked out of him by vampires, and that he's being shafted by thieves. Despite his good general education, he is not well read in economics and has never read Marx, but wants to understand what has gone on in the crisis. What of vital importance could he get from grappling with "the law of value" and departments 1 and 2 and all that gubbins, that he couldn't have got from reading, say, The Economist (I've switched publications to one I'm more familiar with in case it gets hot in here!)?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.